JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Mazhar Iqbal petitioner has assailed the vires of impugned judgment dated 1-4-2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shor Kot, District Jhang; whereby criminal revision petition filed by respondent. No.1 against the order dated 8-2-2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shor Kot was accepted.
2. Facts of the case, succinctly required for determination of the petition in hand, are that the petitioner lodged case F.I.R. No.314, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., against Muhammad Iqbal/ respondent No.1 on 5-4-2010 at Police Station Shorkot City. The accused/ respondent No.1 having been found guilty during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer while placing his name in Column No.3 of the report prepared under section 171, Cr.P.C. Sent the same to the learned trial court. The learned court seized with the matter after adopting all codal formalities, charge sheeted the accused/respondent No.1 under section 489-F, P.P.C., on 22-7-2009. The prosecution was asked to lead its evidence and in this regard statements of five prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/ respondent No.1 was also recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the case was fixed for final arguments. Subsequently, on 8-2-2010, the learned trial court amended the charge by adding offence under sections 419, 420, P.P.C. The accused/ respondent No.1, assailed the order of the learned trial court by filing criminal revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, in terms of judgment dated 1-4-2010, while allowing the same, set aside the order of the learned trial court, which is under challenge through the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned revisional court is contrary to law and the pronouncements of the superior courts of the country, on the subject. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court can amend charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment, if facts and circumstance so warrant. Learned counsel next stated that as the accused/ respondent No.1 had played fraud with the petitioner knowingly that the cheque given by him did not belong to his account, therefore, the learned trial court rightly amended the charge and added offence under sections 419, 420, P.P.C. Learned counsel lastly stated that the learned revisional court failed to apply its independent judicious mind while passing the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned trial court deserves to be restored.
4. As against above, learned D.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, while attending each and every aspect of the case passed the judgment, impugned herein, as such no exception can be made to the same being based on very cogent reasoning.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced pro and contra. I have also gone through the record available on file with the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G.
6. Firstly I intend to dilate upon the fact that whether charge once framed can be altered/added subsequently. There is no cavil to this proposition that charge once framed would not become rigid or irrevocable; it can be altered or changed if it is so warranted by the circumstances. In the Criminal Procedure Code, alteration/ addition of charger is defined under section 227.
It would be advantageous to reproduce section 227, Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-- "227. Court may alter charge.---(1) Any Court may alter or and to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused."
Bare perusal of section supra reveals that there is no bar on the trial court to reframe/amend/alter charge at any stage of trial before pronouncement of judgment, therefore, alteration of charge by the learned trial court in terms of order dated 8-2-2010 is safeguarded by the law on the subject.
7. Now the fact remains that as observed by the learned revisional court, whether facts and circumstances of the case attract the ingredients of sections 419, 420, P.P.C., or not. This Court is well conscious of the fact that any observation made at this stage, would prejudice the case of either party at trial, however, fact remains that as per prosecution version, the cheque did not belong to the account of the accused/respondent No.1, however, it was signed and thumb marked by the accused in the presence of the prosecution witnesses, then definitely provisions of sections 419, 420, P . P.C., would attract to the case. Similarly, if the petitioner fails to lead evidence on this score, admittedly, the benefit of the same would be extended in favour of the accused/respondent No.1, which even otherwise is favourite child of law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 1-4- 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, Jhang is perverse, vicious and against the facts and circumstances as well as contrary to law on the subject, which is accordingly set aside, as a consequence whereof, Order dated 8-2-2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shorkot, District Jhang; whereby the learned trial court had reframed the charge is restored.